No sunshine again
KARPOV FOR FIDE PRESIDENT
By the USCF Executive Board
April 12, 2010
Anatoly Karpov is one of the greatest players of all time, a chess celebrity who will greatly improve FIDE’s chances of attracting quality global sponsors. Mr. Karpov is a strong supporter of traditional chess played under consistent rules. He has been active in promoting the game in the United States, and offers hope for increasing the prestige and popularity of our great game everywhere.
We are pleased to endorse former World Champion Karpov for the office of President of FIDE. The world chess organization is in need of serious reform, and Karpov’s candidacy represents an unusual opportunity to vastly enhance FIDE’s reputation, and that of organized chess worldwide. USCF is looking forward to working closely with Karpov and his team to achieve a shared vision for chess excellence....
Anatoly Karpov has been a long time friend of mine. However, I take no position in this election so far. But many USCF members have raised legitimate questions:
- Did the USCF EB consult the USCF members about this endorsement?
- Why was there a closed door meeting to discuss this endorsement while this procedure is meant for legal or personnel issues only? This is against the rules and policies of the USCF.
- Why is there no transcript of this meeting? The USCF members have the right to know what goes on with a federation they paid dues to.
- Why so much secrecy?
Labels: Bill Goichberg, Dirty Politics, Jim Berry, Mike Atkins, Randy Bauer, USCF politics
posted by Chess Daily News @ 4/19/2010 10:05:00 AM
16 Comments:
At Monday, April 19, 2010 11:12:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
Below is the reason why everyone must vote for Sam Sloan. This board under Goichberg is corrupt. It's the most corrupt board in USCF history. Goichberg will do anything to benefit himself and CCA even at the expense of the USCF.
Here is what a former USCF EB candidate wrote:
The USCF board decision to endorse Karpov was held in multiple telephone conference closed door sessions. In a transparent, open governance organization about the only matters appropriate for closed meetings are to discuss litigation matters and personnel matters.
Why was the discussion of this important matter held by the Board in closed session? IMO, a closed session on this issue is totally
inappropriate and smacks of back room deals. It is my understanding that Bill Goichberg orchestrated multiple closed conference call meetings until he obtained the vote he wanted which was NOT the vote he got in the first closed meeting.
So much for transparency. Shame on every board member who agreed to do
the deal in the back room with the door shut. Shame!!!
If this kind of garbage continues, I hope another organization is formed to supplant the good old boys and gal in the back room with an open, member oriented organization. This board, under the defacto presidency of Bill Goichberg, stinks to high heaven.
Then again, maybe Bill is trying to galvanize support for Sam Sloan and make a horse race out of the coming board election. :-)
by B. Lafferty on rgcp
At Monday, April 19, 2010 11:13:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
I would like to know how that happened, especially when we hear from Goichberg himself that "major supporters" such as Rex Sinquefield and Kasparov were brought into the deliberations, as well as Karpov's representative, GM Henley. "Major supporters" means money men, and that makes it look like these endorsements were paid for somehow, that there was a financial quid pro quo.
It is absurd to say that it was a "closed" executive session to consider a "personnel issue" when there were all these other people involved.
What role did all these people play? Whose decision was it to let them into the deliberations? What pressures were applied to the EB members to change their initial view, considering that the initial view was not to play politics with the endorsement of Americans for FIDE VP on both slates. What entitled all these other people to a seat at the table when regular USCF members were not even informed that a decision was being
made? Were the EB members simply badgered into going along with
Goichberg because he brought pressure to bear, and insisted that the teleconferences continue until he got his way? None of this represents an auspicious start to a Karpov campaign founded on Karpov being the anti-corruption candidate. Why did USCF President Jim Berry permit a tainted "process" like that to happen?
By Brian Mottershead
MACA Board of Directors
At Monday, April 19, 2010 11:24:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
Sam Sloan's statement:
The USCF has lost money every year since 1995 except for the one year that I was on the board. The USCF has lost membership every year since 1999 except for the one year that I was on the board. The one year that I was on the board was the only year that the USCF reported a surplus in real money and also the only year that membership went up.
Why? Because I keep riding herd on wasteful and ridiculous spending. Some may not like my style but I get results.
I have specific plans and proposals to cut costs and expenses and to increase revenues to return the USCF to the surplus years of the distant past.
Somebody needs to be minding the store. I seem to be the only one who is doing that.
By Sam Sloan
At Monday, April 19, 2010 12:38:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
Posted by Brian Mottershead on the USCF Issues Forum.
-----------------------------------
Another thing I would like to know is whether the decisions of the EB
are now "official", and if they are, how that happened.
Article V Section 3 of the USCF Bylaws sets out how meetings of the EB are supposed to be conducted.
If the teleconferences were meetings of the EB, then they were "special meetings". Under the Bylaws, special meetings may be called by the President or by any three members of the EB. Which was it in this case?
Who called the meeting? When was it called? How was notice given to the other EB members?
All meetings of the EB, including conference calls, shall be recorded in their entirety, state the Bylaws. Any person wishing to obtain a copy of the recording may do so at cost. Where is the recording? How do I obtain it? The public portion of the meeting, which must include the votes, is
to be available on the web-site within one month of the meeting record. When will this be up on the web-site?
Under the bylaws, the minutes of the EB meetings shall be sent to USCF Delegates and Alternate Delegates and posted on the web-site within six weeks of the meeting. This is important because the actual Directors of the USCF are the Delegates, and actions by the EB on behalf of the Delegates in between the Delegates meetings must be ratified. That is
done on the basis of the minutes of the EB meetings. If a decision is not in the minutes, it didn't happen, and can't be ratified.
Where are the minutes? Have they been sent to Delegates and Alternate Delegates? When will they be sent, and put on the web-site?
If the teleconferences in question were an official meeting of the
board, were all these requirements met? If not, why not?
If the teleconferences were not an official meeting, it would seem that contrary to appearances, the Board has not acted officially. It has merely held a get-together and conducted a straw poll. That means that Richard Conn is not yet officially endorsed. Since, under FIDE regulations, his candidacy depends on being officially endorsed by his federation, it would seem a do-over by the EB, following the prescribed process of Article V Section 3, is now required. When is that going to
happen, and will the Bylaws be followed this time?
At Monday, April 19, 2010 12:40:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
This is clearly another illegal and crooked action by Bill Goichberg to benefit himself and CCA. Jim Berry has no clue and he's the most incompetent board member. He is just another lapdog for Goichberg as a political payoff. Randy Bauer is just another incompetent chess politician but thinks he's God. It's time to get rid of all of them.
At Thursday, May 13, 2010 8:23:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
Last weekend I attended the National Elementary in Atlanta.
While there I was told that there is a delegate resolution to prevent the USCF office from bidding out any of the National Scholastic Championships.
Frankly, I didn't know they had been bidding them out since about
2000.
Does anyone know who put forth this resolution?
Does anyone have a copy they could put up?
After an absence of 10 years from the event, I was surprised to see
the same faces running the events with very few exceptions.
Many of these faces have passed from moderately aged to mid 70s.
I must wonder where the young organizers are. Are they being kept out by the old guards chumroderie?
Richard Peterson
At Thursday, May 13, 2010 8:33:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
Goichberg is the most corrupt chess politician in US chess history. The man has no understanding of the concept of ethics. He should be held financially responsible for all the self dealings for years. The only way to solve this problem is to elect Sam Sloan. He's no angel but he will blow the whistle on all of Goichberg's crooked deals.
At Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:23:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
There is absolutely no room in a Not For Profit Membership
Organization for Secrecy of any kind.
No room for accounting shenanigans
No room for back room deals
No room for closed meetings
No room for failing to disclose transcripts
No room for secret contracts
No room for cronyism and nepotism
No selection of representatives for prestigious events (Olympiads, etc...) by anything other
then publicly available criteria established well before any such events.
Every single detail of actions taken on Behalf of the Membership (ie the Owners) hould be open to review by the Entire Membership, Period.
At Tuesday, May 25, 2010 1:40:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
ADMs have been posted at the USCF Board meeting in St. Louis to raise
the candidates filing fee to $400, to require 50 signatures involving
at least 25 delegates from at least 10 different states and to require candidates to file in the previous year.
All of these changes will make it more difficult to run.
I strongly oppose these changes. The filing fee was increased to $250 to keep me out. It was figured that I could not afford $250, so this was passed as an anti-Sam Sloan measure.
So, what happened? It kept other people out who might have wanted to
run. This year we have the weakest field ever in USCF Election
history. (Sorry, but that is my opinion.)
Requiring candidates to pay more money and to file a year in advance
will just make it harder for good people to run. Also, it fails to
anticipate new developments. For example, this year we have three
candidates for two positions. If one of us drops dead before the vote count, then the other two are automatically elected.
I would like to see measures to neutralize the advantages some people have. For example, Goichberg almost always runs a slate of candidates and he sends batches of 17,000 postcards both advertising his tournaments and promoting his slate of candidates. This leads to the One-Man-Rule situation that is the main problem with the USCF, in my
opinion.
Requiring 25 delegates from at least 10 different states will make it nearly impossible for anybody from California or the Western United States to run because the states are bigger out there. This also increases the advantage Goichberg already has because he runs tournaments in ten different states. Why don't we just appoint him Emperor and end this charade of elections?
There should be changes to make it easier to run rather than harder.
Raising the filing fee to $400 will not stop either me or Goichberg from running, but it might stop Joe Lux or Mike Goodall, good candidates who have run in the past but did not run this year.
Sam Sloan
At Friday, July 23, 2010 8:57:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
The results of the USCF Election have been announced by Executive
Director Bill Hall. There were 2035 ballots cast. Everybody was
allowed to vote for two out of the three candidates.
The results were as follows:
Mike Nietman 1517
Gary Walters 1472
Sam Sloan 693
The results of the voting were very strange and even suspicious. The
way the numbers add up it appears that there were two kinds of voters:
1. Those who voted bullet voted for me and for nobody else.
2. Those who voted for Walters and Nietman and did not vote for me.
The question is: How did this happen? Walters is unknown and new in
the world of chess whereas Nietman is fairly well known and has been
around for a long time. Walters did not campaign at all except for
posting to the forums. Nietman at least campaigned some. Why would
Walters get almost as many votes as Nietman?
The heavy hand of Bill Goichberg seems present here. Goichberg is
known to have controlled or influenced the election process in almost
every USCF election except for the one in which I was elected. Yet,
this year Goichberg did not send out his traditional 17,000 postcards
telling his minions whom to vote for. How did Goichberg get the word
out instructing his followers how to mark their ballots?
Is it possible that Goichberg sent out a bulk mailing telling voters
to vote for Walters and Nietman that we do not know about? Perhaps it
was not a general mailing but only went to those whom he knew would
follow his orders.
Why was Goichberg so confident that Walters and Nietman would be
elected that he appeared to be sitting out the campaign this year?
Strange behavior. It almost seems that Goichberg knew well in advance
how the vote count would turn out.
Sam Sloan
At Monday, July 26, 2010 11:26:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
The USCF is ALL about MONEY, POWER
and POLITICS. Is it possible that the reason there were only 3
candidates running is that many people are simply sick of all the USCF
politics and simply don't want to expend their time and efforts in
what many view as a corrupt organization?!? Bill G. is the disease,
until actual REFORM is enacted, having maybe 3 candidates run for
office is likely to become the norm, and if Bill G. backs 2 of the
3.... Simply put nobody gives a hoot. The history of the USCF is
littered with the bodies of those who tried to bring change only to
fail. No, the solution has to come from the membership. The ONLY way
we are likely to see more people run for office is to enact strict
TERM LIMITS for those who serve.
The USCF has become a dinosaur which is going to meet a dinosaur's
fate; it stagnated and now costs too much to belong to and provides
its members with very little compared to on-line chess organizations,
many of which are FREE and provide their members with better content.
The USCF has been taken over by the scholastics crowd. The one thing
that any member should have the right to control is how their ratings
get effected in the so called "Duel Rated" events, which are simply
skittles tournaments. These tournaments are designed for scholastic
members, and tend to adversely effect the rating of older players. The
USCF feels it does not have competition , but the fact is it does:
older members are simply opting out by letting their memberships lapse
since they no longer feel welcome in an organization that once
belonged to them.
The other side of the coin is MONEY which Bill G. represents. He
really does not care what happens so long as he can make money, and
wield power. Me?!? I don't see anything changing any time in the near
future. So tell me Sam, *had* you been elected to the board what would
you have done to persuade me to re-join an organization that would be
happy to accept my dues but the only thing I might get out of it is a
shoddy magazine? Would you seek to do away with the dual rating in G/
30-G/60 and allow the MEMBER TO CHOOSE if they want to be dual rated,
or "Quick Chess rated ONLY?? Would you simply get rid of G/30-G/60
tournaments and move to longer time controls??
Belonging to the USCF is a losing proposition, let alone serving on a
board of directors. The USCF is a corrupt organization, that is
dominated by politics, but which offers its membership very little for
their money. It is inflexible compared to its on-line competitors.
Older adults are no longer the focus of the USCF. The concept of
playing for FUN has been lost, and the mission of the USCF has become
one of seeking out the next Bobby Fischer through the numerous
scholastic programs and G/30-G/60 tournaments. These tournaments tend
to punish older adults since they can not move as fast as children,
nor have many had the extensive coaching children now get in school,
as a result you have a vast number of rating points being stripped
from older adults and transferred to children since adults can not
elect to have only their Quick Chess ratings effected. Here is an
example where the USCF could broaden its appeal as these numerous
tournaments could be a popular format for adults wishing simply to
play for fun without having to put lifetime regular rating on the
line, or adults "testing the waters" after not playing in years.
Since there is no intention of doing away with this format and moving
to longer time controls that might favor adults, and there is no
intention of allowing adults to choose if they want to be dual rated
in G/30 - G/60 events, tell me what you are going to do to entice me
to re-join the USCF??
The USCF is about MONEY, POWER, and POLITICS, and the ONLY thing *I*
control as an OLDER ADULT is MY MONEY -- the USCF is NOT entitled to
it if they can't provide *me* with some product that *I* want.
At Monday, July 26, 2010 11:26:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
The USCF is ALL about MONEY, POWER
and POLITICS. Is it possible that the reason there were only 3
candidates running is that many people are simply sick of all the USCF
politics and simply don't want to expend their time and efforts in
what many view as a corrupt organization?!? Bill G. is the disease,
until actual REFORM is enacted, having maybe 3 candidates run for
office is likely to become the norm, and if Bill G. backs 2 of the
3.... Simply put nobody gives a hoot. The history of the USCF is
littered with the bodies of those who tried to bring change only to
fail. No, the solution has to come from the membership. The ONLY way
we are likely to see more people run for office is to enact strict
TERM LIMITS for those who serve.
The USCF has become a dinosaur which is going to meet a dinosaur's
fate; it stagnated and now costs too much to belong to and provides
its members with very little compared to on-line chess organizations,
many of which are FREE and provide their members with better content.
The USCF has been taken over by the scholastics crowd. The one thing
that any member should have the right to control is how their ratings
get effected in the so called "Duel Rated" events, which are simply
skittles tournaments. These tournaments are designed for scholastic
members, and tend to adversely effect the rating of older players. The
USCF feels it does not have competition , but the fact is it does:
older members are simply opting out by letting their memberships lapse
since they no longer feel welcome in an organization that once
belonged to them.
The other side of the coin is MONEY which Bill G. represents. He
really does not care what happens so long as he can make money, and
wield power. Me?!? I don't see anything changing any time in the near
future. So tell me Sam, *had* you been elected to the board what would
you have done to persuade me to re-join an organization that would be
happy to accept my dues but the only thing I might get out of it is a
shoddy magazine? Would you seek to do away with the dual rating in G/
30-G/60 and allow the MEMBER TO CHOOSE if they want to be dual rated,
or "Quick Chess rated ONLY?? Would you simply get rid of G/30-G/60
tournaments and move to longer time controls??
At Monday, July 26, 2010 11:27:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
The USCF is ALL about MONEY, POWER
and POLITICS. Is it possible that the reason there were only 3
candidates running is that many people are simply sick of all the USCF
politics and simply don't want to expend their time and efforts in
what many view as a corrupt organization?!? Bill G. is the disease,
until actual REFORM is enacted, having maybe 3 candidates run for
office is likely to become the norm, and if Bill G. backs 2 of the
3.... Simply put nobody gives a hoot. The history of the USCF is
littered with the bodies of those who tried to bring change only to
fail. No, the solution has to come from the membership. The ONLY way
we are likely to see more people run for office is to enact strict
TERM LIMITS for those who serve.
The USCF has become a dinosaur which is going to meet a dinosaur's
fate; it stagnated and now costs too much to belong to and provides
its members with very little compared to on-line chess organizations,
many of which are FREE and provide their members with better content.
The USCF has been taken over by the scholastics crowd. The one thing
that any member should have the right to control is how their ratings
get effected in the so called "Duel Rated" events, which are simply
skittles tournaments. These tournaments are designed for scholastic
members, and tend to adversely effect the rating of older players. The
USCF feels it does not have competition , but the fact is it does:
older members are simply opting out by letting their memberships lapse
since they no longer feel welcome in an organization that once
belonged to them.
At Monday, July 26, 2010 11:27:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
The other side of the coin is MONEY which Bill G. represents. He
really does not care what happens so long as he can make money, and
wield power. Me?!? I don't see anything changing any time in the near
future. So tell me Sam, *had* you been elected to the board what would
you have done to persuade me to re-join an organization that would be
happy to accept my dues but the only thing I might get out of it is a
shoddy magazine? Would you seek to do away with the dual rating in G/
30-G/60 and allow the MEMBER TO CHOOSE if they want to be dual rated,
or "Quick Chess rated ONLY?? Would you simply get rid of G/30-G/60
tournaments and move to longer time controls??
Belonging to the USCF is a losing proposition, let alone serving on a
board of directors. The USCF is a corrupt organization, that is
dominated by politics, but which offers its membership very little for
their money. It is inflexible compared to its on-line competitors.
Older adults are no longer the focus of the USCF. The concept of
playing for FUN has been lost, and the mission of the USCF has become
one of seeking out the next Bobby Fischer through the numerous
scholastic programs and G/30-G/60 tournaments. These tournaments tend
to punish older adults since they can not move as fast as children,
nor have many had the extensive coaching children now get in school,
as a result you have a vast number of rating points being stripped
from older adults and transferred to children since adults can not
elect to have only their Quick Chess ratings effected. Here is an
example where the USCF could broaden its appeal as these numerous
tournaments could be a popular format for adults wishing simply to
play for fun without having to put lifetime regular rating on the
line, or adults "testing the waters" after not playing in years.
Since there is no intention of doing away with this format and moving
to longer time controls that might favor adults, and there is no
intention of allowing adults to choose if they want to be dual rated
in G/30 - G/60 events, tell me what you are going to do to entice me
to re-join the USCF??
The USCF is about MONEY, POWER, and POLITICS, and the ONLY thing *I*
control as an OLDER ADULT is MY MONEY -- the USCF is NOT entitled to
it if they can't provide *me* with some product that *I* want.
At Monday, July 26, 2010 11:28:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
The other side of the coin is MONEY which Bill G. represents. He
really does not care what happens so long as he can make money, and
wield power. Me?!? I don't see anything changing any time in the near
future. So tell me Sam, *had* you been elected to the board what would
you have done to persuade me to re-join an organization that would be
happy to accept my dues but the only thing I might get out of it is a
shoddy magazine? Would you seek to do away with the dual rating in G/
30-G/60 and allow the MEMBER TO CHOOSE if they want to be dual rated,
or "Quick Chess rated ONLY?? Would you simply get rid of G/30-G/60
tournaments and move to longer time controls??
Belonging to the USCF is a losing proposition, let alone serving on a
board of directors. The USCF is a corrupt organization, that is
dominated by politics, but which offers its membership very little for
their money. It is inflexible compared to its on-line competitors.
Older adults are no longer the focus of the USCF. The concept of
playing for FUN has been lost, and the mission of the USCF has become
one of seeking out the next Bobby Fischer through the numerous
scholastic programs and G/30-G/60 tournaments. These tournaments tend
to punish older adults since they can not move as fast as children,
nor have many had the extensive coaching children now get in school,
as a result you have a vast number of rating points being stripped
from older adults and transferred to children since adults can not
elect to have only their Quick Chess ratings effected.
At Monday, July 26, 2010 11:28:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
Here is an
example where the USCF could broaden its appeal as these numerous
tournaments could be a popular format for adults wishing simply to
play for fun without having to put lifetime regular rating on the
line, or adults "testing the waters" after not playing in years.
Since there is no intention of doing away with this format and moving
to longer time controls that might favor adults, and there is no
intention of allowing adults to choose if they want to be dual rated
in G/30 - G/60 events, tell me what you are going to do to entice me
to re-join the USCF??
The USCF is about MONEY, POWER, and POLITICS, and the ONLY thing *I*
control as an OLDER ADULT is MY MONEY -- the USCF is NOT entitled to
it if they can't provide *me* with some product that *I* want.
Post a Comment
<< Home